Intersting posts. 1) EliasX, Etonalife and Yazici, I agree that democratic freedoms have to be defended from maurading religious dogma - the first is Public, the second has to remain private. Where Public ends and Private begins depends on specific issues, on a case by case. Freedoms under the law, afford each of us some space - intellectual, emotional and religious. After all, it was the religious dissenters in European societies - 15th to 19th centuries - that ensured these freedoms as Public norms. Somehow, Islam has missed out this phase in its history, although it has some real dissenters from the main-stream Sunni Islam.
I believe the "cartoons" were silly but showed real European frustration over a number of controversies the Islamic world churned up, starting with Rushdie - all wanting to restrict free speech. I wonder how many Islamic leaders saw it that way? Surely, they needed to give that round to Europe and the rest of the world. Ignoring the cartoons would have been best.
2. Terry, the theology - implicit in the passages you have sampled for us - is a HUGE worry for non-muslims. It is like watching a re-play of the Conquistidores and the hapless American Indians, right in our midst in the 21 century. We, the non-muslims, the "American Indians" are killed and maimed as we travel in trains, buses, planes, as we shop in malls or travel abroad, admiring Luxor and its splendour from Phroanic days - Young honeymooning Swiss and Japanese couples and other European tourists were killed there, remember, by the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt? - some of the victims begged for their lives on their knees, before being shot at close range.
Given this "power of belief", is it any wonder the world worries about WMDs in the hands of Islamist regimes? "God Madness" can be more damaging than the madness we see in asylums.
3. Islam seems to be either indifferent or in a real mad twist over ENDS AND MEANS. Groups like Al-Quaida think the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. If we all think that... Al-Q won't be alone, would they? They won't be special in an anarchic world, wd they? GOD knows many nations, many groups have some real grievances. Not all ignore the need to adopt acceptable means. And that provides the Al-Q types a DECENT WORLD-BACK DROP in which to kill and shock us. It is the decent, non-violent world that can provide solutions, albeit slowly. There will be a Palestinian state - the world would do the right thing, if only Al-Q and their friends would let it. Taliban - very pious but, to them, it is NOT unislamic to grow opium, to smuggle drugs and arms across borders. Everything okay in the fight against the "Kuffars".
4. Giltedged: I share your dread of PC. In the West and in India, PC (political correctness) is entrenched, especially, when it comes to Islam. Remember my earlier post? None of the main details of Islamic iconoclasm, the terror spread through India are included in history books used in India - a "green wash", if you like. The Indian govt., subsidises the HAJ pilgrimage of Indian muslims, no such money for Hindus who are also "pilgrimage" people like the muslims. Media - it is news only if a muslim is attacked by others, never news the other way round. So the PC game is played.
5. Petro-dollars and Trade: The West and the rest of the world, have to respect the Islamic world, not merely out of common decency, but also, for the trade and other economic opportunities. The Gulf Arab states are great trading centres, right now. Despite its strict Wahabism, SaudiArabia, is awash with petro-dollars. The Islamic world is very much a part of the world economy.

I rather think that these "inter-faith" conferences have an eye on keeping the Islamic world in reasonable enough humour to get them to focus on economic/trade matters. I rather think that Western leaders know as much as any of us on the dangers that Islam poses.
One can always try to distract them away from rocking this world too far. But is there a need for a more serious warning? - that bringing about ANARCHY is NOT good for the Islamic world? There is a good chance that anarchy may be the only result of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Lebanon. We may see that more clearly in another ten years time. Is Islam far-sighted?

The problem is Islam, if you look anywhere around the world, where ever Islam is in contact with another culture/civilisation you see an uneasiness or conflict. It is Islam that needs to ajust and come to terms with the world and not the other way around. On the local front, nothing is more repolsive in observing compliant Europe submit to this idelogy, building mosques,giving in to foreign customs, and failing to halt the letting in of people who look down on western culture.

According to the Religion of Peace website, there have been 11,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. The individuals & groups responsible for these attacks say that they are inspired by Islamic teaching. They quote the Qur'an & other Islamic writings to support their claims. Their actions, in other words, are based on Islamic ideology.
Here are some quotes from the Qur'an:
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight & kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait & ambush them using every strategem of war."
Qur'an: 9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's cause, they slay & are slain, kill & are killed."
Qur'an: 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender paying the protective tax in submission."
I could continue quoting for hours, probably days.
Seemingly, the more you read Islamic teaching, the worse it gets. The only comparison to make is not with other religions but with various forms of totalitarian ideology that have plagued the world for much of the 20th century.
One has only to look at Islam in practice, not just the theory represented in the various books of Islam. Look at Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Gaza. What is life like in the rest of the Muslim world?
Inter-faith dialogue with such an ideology is really a very bad joke. It is no wonder that freedom of speech is problematic with Muslims since even a casual examination of Islamic belief & practice reveals a rather unpleasant reality.

I don't know which is more frightening- militants from Islamic lands funded by Saudi money and abetted by corruption or "European" moderate Moslems (ie Moslems from outside Europe called Europeans by politicians and the media) funded and abetted by corrupt or politically-correct politicians and media.

Indica. Buying peace has never been part of the equation. If I expect the world to respect my ideals and hopes for the future, I must (unless I am dominated by bigotry) allow that others expect their ideals and hopes be respected as well. In agreement or not, a voice is being stated. Perhaps the methods are unorthodox, and perhaps the accusations/threats are unjustified. But I cannot believe that Islam can either be excluded nor ignored. Wiped out is only an option for the cruel who we should all fear anyways. So what can we do to cohabit a planet in a flux of ignorant duality? Perhaps disenfranchisement is a part? I know I'm no expert, but a life regulated constantly and/or caged for time almost always becomes more virulent. Fight fire with water and balance may be found.

The article was typical of the white-wash Islam receives in most mainstream media. We don't need inter-faith dialogue, we need a confrontation with Islam, a public debate focused on the specifics of Islamic teaching & doctrine, no-holds-barred - not the usual PC platitudes. I am referring specifically to Islamic teachings on jihad, dhimmitude for non-Muslims, death for apostates, lack of freedom of religion, anti-Semitism, death for homosexuals, etc.
Islam should be PUBLICALLY debated on specifics, using Islamic texts, speeches, the Shari'a, Hadith, & the Qur'an.
Of particular interest would be the POLITICAL nature of Islam.
Enough of the PC cover-up - a little blunt truth would be appreciated.

SIR – You touch on, but do not discuss deeply, the most important point of the “Islam and the West” debate: Islam is not an easily definable entity, and neither is the West. It is difficult enough to find a government that truly represents the people; Islam and the West are too poorly defined and nuanced for a few leaders to claim to speak for them. Surely time would be better spent educating ourselves on our differences and the differences within our supposed groups. But perhaps these talks will calm down the reductionist thinkers from each civilisation long enough to learn the ignorance of their perspectives.

What you neglected to mention with your comment about the Muslim destruction of thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples, was the wanton Muslim slaughter of millions of innocent non-Muslims. Some of the original reports by Arab generals speak volumes about Islam's "peaceful" nature when it comes to co-existing, tolerating or accepting other religions.

Yes, the main "mid-east" religions (Islam and Christianity, though not the ethnocentric Jews) make presumptuous claims to man's spirituality, ones that have historically been backed up by violence, threats of violence or intimidation rather than "good deeds."

That is why secularism, rationalism, and Liberal democratic freedoms and principles such as free speech need to be protected from the likes of those who are attempting to circumscribe them in the name of religion and "tolerance."

India's experience of Islam, both historical and contemporary, may be of considerable interest to the West. With a Hindu majority of about 82%, she hosts the second largest population of muslims - larger than Pakistan's.
The "inter-faith" dialogue between this mid-east religion - one with the "sharpest" theology of the three of them - and Hinduism, the religion totally native to India, is nearly 800 years old. Long term peace in that dialogue, I believe, has NOT been possible. The reasons are:
1. Advent of Islam in India has, largely, been through military conquest, accompanied by much "iconoclasm" Islam is known for. Thousands of Hindu, Buddhist and Jain temples were destroyed. Mosques were built in every major Hindu pilgrimage centre, sowing the seeds for troubles several centuries later !! All the muslim dynasties were of foreign origin, used Persian as the "official" language, though they were a mix of Turks, Afghans and Persians. They were no less imperial than the British Raj, but India's leftist historians would not protray them as such.
2. Islam had the "We-are-the-Truth" psyche that all mid-east religions have. That is NOT the case with religions of Indian origin. Individuals can choose their own religious or non-relgious path. Ambivalence was tolerated. No attempt was made to "regiment" society through ONE agreed theology spread by centralised institutions. Centrality of "Caste" and social practices thereof did not affect the freedom of individuals, each to chalk out his/her own path.
3. That contest between an "organised" faith such as Islam and a more "evolutionary" faith as Hinduism, was a stalemate. To break that, Emperor Akbar, most intellectual of the Moghuls - an early prominent convener of "inter-faith" dialogues, after extensive discussions with Hindu, Muslim and Christian priests, formulated a NEW religion, he called Dheen-Ilahi - an essence of the three major religions. Sadly, one of his descendants, Aurangazeb, had abandoned such reconciliation - he killed his elder brother and crown-prince, Dara-Shikoh, branding him an "apostate" because he had learnt Sanskrit and translated the Bhagavad Gita and 50 Upanishads into Persian. Fundamentalism in Islam is not a modern phenomenon. Waging wars against "non-muslims" throughout the two decades or so he reigned, he died a disappointed man. Unable to defeat his enemies, the "non-muslims", he could see them closing down his Empire. Sikhism owes its birth to this Moghul. India was ready for the British.
4. Islam is used to success, used to seeing non-Islamic civilisation crumble in its path. But Hindu resistance had been unprecedented. In the Islamic arch, from Tunisia to Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka are the only big gaps of non-muslims.
5. Wherever they may be, muslims soon move to the centre of the political stage. After 1947, under India's secular constitution, muslim numbers have grown from 9% to 13% (approx). India's democratic secularism has not impressed muslim terrorists, many trained in the World's "Premier Finishing School" for them, namely, Pakistan. Bombs go off with depressing regularity in India's markets, trains and temples.
The West may find that, no matter how secular you may be, how extensive the freedom you provide for muslims to follow their religion, they will still target you for some reason or another. Siege mentality is integral to Islam. They would be unhappy without it.
Reactions of the ordinary peoples in Western countries to their new encounters with Islam have a deja vu feeling for Hindus. They have seen it all before. There is a quiet consolation that now they have company - all over the world.
The report's statement, "Hardline Hindus at odds with other faiths" may be seen in a few years time, as a very odd statement in itself. In the West, you will see an increase in "hard-line" people, whether they call themselves "cartoonists" or "Christians". That is what Islam does to non-muslims. You are NOT going to buy peace with your blooming secularism and democracy. Islam and Muslims won't be impressed. That is India's experience. Apologise for the long post.

I think many parties have yet to lend their value-propositions to this business of cross-cultural communication. We should first work towards a clearer understanding of how language works as a system, and of how human minds work in general. This will become an essential foundation for driving to conclusion a commensuration between "Islam" and "the West". I wish for world peace. (-_-)\/

A wonderful article ! I am an American and a Muslim, and I can agree with your conclusions through evidence that I have gathered in my personal life. There are certainly extremist Muslims, and for that reason I would never visit certain parts of Pakistan though I was born there. But there are also parts of Alabama and Mississippi and parts of London and Wall Street, where there are other extremists of the Christian and Zionist kind who would happily do a number on me. As the statisticians lay, look within one standard deviation of the mean, and not at the outliers and the fringes for over 63% of the expected population of responses (assuming a normal distribution)

It is amazing to see how sensible and gentle Islam can be when discussing what can and what cannot be printed on 25th page of small European newspaper, how often words from liberal lexicon like "offensive", "unfair", "human rights", are used. But what if we apply the same criteria and level of sensitivity when talking about Islamic media, say, official state newspaper with circulation of millions? Can, for instance, calling Jews "pigs" and "monkeys", states "Big Satan" and "Small Satan" or open calls for genocide be considered "offensive" or "unfair"?

I think many funamentalist Muslims do not understand the difference between anti-Muslim sentiment in the West, which is being stirred up by the same propaganda mongers that stir up hatred of anyone conceived of as an enemy, such as anti-communist during the cold war, anti-liberal in America since Reagan, anti-German and anti-Japanese during WWII, Japan and China bashing by anti-free traders etc. etc.and the huge portion of Western society that is secular and therefore against the influence of all organized religion. Many secular people in the West demand individual freedom from all reglious beliefs and by definition oppose the encroachment of all religios beliefs on their lives. That does include Islam but also includes attempts by American evangelicals to create a "Christian society, the constant interference by the Catholic church and many other groups. That portion of Western society that is secular oppose all religious interference in their individual lives, not just Muslim. Western secularists do not oppose the right of individuals to live according to their faiths but demand that right not to be forced to live according to religious precepts. Religious fundamentalism, notably evangelical Christians are probably more of a danger in the United States than radical Islam is in Muslim countries. If supernatural beings want to fight a war amongts themselves they should do so in the supernatural and leave planet earth alone. If Yahweh and Allah and Jesus and Rom and all the rest really are so powerful, why to they need paltry humans to fight their battles for them.

EliasX. While I agree with you that the Prince's comment is no reason to limit our freedom of speech. I must add that it was not so long ago that the Christians followed their tenets and believed Non-Christians were inferior as well. The persecuted often rise to become the persecutors. It just happens that we are living in a time when Islam is exploding from within, not unlike the Christian reformation in many ways. While it is the violent fundamentalists who claim the news, it is the peace and freedom loving Muslims who need to claim our attention. Do not be so rash to judge a billion people in one stroke. Each one has dreams. And each one probably views the world somewhat differently from the next.

Interfaith dialogue has clear limits. For some time now, leaders in the Muslim world have been trying in international fora to proscribe Western freedom of speech and make criticism of Islam taboo.

With respect to Prince Turki al-Faisal's comment that he "can never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my faith," all I can say is to hell with him.

Many of Islam's fundamental tenets (Koran, Hadith/Sunnah, Shariah) ARE OFFENSIVE TO NON-MUSLIMS, who are deemed to be inferior human beings under Islamic law.

Maybe it is time the Economist put Islam under a secular microscope and dissected its core beliefs. And what if a rational and objective look at Islam found that it DEFAMES OTHER RELIGIONS (and non-monotheistic religions that Islam doesn't recognize as "religions")?

Well, if there's an international law that curtails freedom of speech by prohibiting the defamation of religion and the core tenets of Islam (or Christianity for that matter) are deemed to defame other religions, what then Prince Turki? Oh, right, I forgot, Islam is the "only true faith" and therefore beyond reproach. NOT!

It's worth asking whether this conflict between "Islam" and "The West" isn't the same conflict we find in the U.S. between the 'religious right' and the 'liberals'? The religious right is also 'neo-fundamentalist', and feels itself under threat by the encroachments of science and popular culture. There are a great many parallels if you care to look. The greater gap is not between Christian and Islamic, but between traditionalist and liberal.

Indeed, if you get a committed Baptist and a commited Shiite together, and you compare fundamental values and worries, you will find they have a great deal in common. Get either one together with an openly lesbian evolutionary biologist, and you'd be wise to have a fire extinguisher handy.